• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Maybe that's where your issue lies :2razz:

Y como insistieran en preguntarle, se enderezó y les dijo: El que de vosotros esté sin pecado sea el primero en arrojar la piedra contra ella.
 
Y como insistieran en preguntarle, se enderezó y les dijo: El que de vosotros esté sin pecado sea el primero en arrojar la piedra contra ella.

Bien esta lo que bien acaba.
 
Tostados bean burrito :doh

El mucho chalupa guacamole :2wave:
 
Oh POO, BH! If the term means the same as what we have, all the legal rights and everything, equal standing, everything, explain to me where this is discriminatory. You're picking at a stupid term. Let marriage belong to the church and civil union to those who choose it.
Purrs,
Pookie

That would be fine kind of if the State did not issue the marriage license.
 
Oh POO, BH! If the term means the same as what we have, all the legal rights and everything, equal standing, everything, explain to me where this is discriminatory. You're picking at a stupid term. Let marriage belong to the church and civil union to those who choose it.
Purrs,
Pookie

What does that even mean?
 
Pleae quote an existing law which stipulates an orientation requierment.

A law does not necessarily need to use a category of people within the law to discriminate against that category of people. A perfect example is presented in poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were instituted to prevent black people from voting although they didn't specifically mention race.
 
Pleae quote an existing law which stipulates an orientation requierment.


the fact that two males or two females are unlawfully allowed to marry each other is all the proof that is needed. the laws stipulate a man and a woman. the laws are hiding behind NOT saying orientation and using this "gender" issue to confuse the matter. it is not complicated...
 
A law does not necessarily need to use a category of people within the law to discriminate against that category of people. A perfect example is presented in poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were instituted to prevent black people from voting although they didn't specifically mention race.

So you have no example....
 
the fact that two males or two females are unlawfully allowed to marry each other is all the proof that is needed. the laws stipulate a man and a woman. the laws are hiding behind NOT saying orientation and using this "gender" issue to confuse the matter.

The laws weren't made with discrimination in mind, unless you're ready with an extremely well sourced conspiracy theory.

If you are correct here, then the same sex marriage legislation you support is deliberately discriminatory against polygamists as you only refer to 2 people being married.

Clearly, just as you are not trying to be discriminatory against other groups, neither is the existing law attempting to be discriminatory against homosexuals.

it is not complicated...

Yet you still don't understand.
 
Last edited:
So you have no example....

I'm not going to bother looking for one. I already showed that it is irrelevant because a law does not need to specifically mention a group to discriminate against them.
 
I'm not going to bother looking for one. I already showed that it is irrelevant because a law does not need to specifically mention a group to discriminate against them.

You fail to show that such a thing is actually occurring here, though.

Sure, in theory, that has and can happen again.

But is it occurring now? You have chosen not to support your claim that it is.
 
The laws weren't made with discrimination in mind, unless you're ready with an extremely well sourced conspiracy theory.

If you are correct here, then the same sex marriage legislation you support is deliberately discriminatory against polygamists as you only refer to 2 people being married.

Clearly, just as you are not trying to be discriminatory against other groups, neither is the existing law attempting to be discriminatory against homosexuals.



Yet you still don't understand.

I never claimed, nor would I claim that the laws were made with Discrimination in mind, but that does not alter the fact that this is how the laws actually are. I am keeping a simple issue... simple. I clearly do understand and if you are going to be petty and not apply a logical counter, then I will bid you a nice day.
 
I never claimed, nor would I claim that the laws were made with Discrimination in mind, but that does not alter the fact that this is how the laws actually are. I am keeping a simple issue... simple. I clearly do understand and if you are going to be petty and not apply a logical counter, then I will bid you a nice day.

...and that was that, apparently! :rofl



Originally Posted by YamiB
A law does not necessarily need to use a category of people within the law to discriminate against that category of people.

Yep...
 
give yourself a pat on the back. you won the whole thread.

I certainly did... I won it all. I like winning, it is everything. Gonna go surfing to celebrate! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom